John H. Porter

8.6k total citations · 2 hit papers
64 papers, 6.4k citations indexed

About

John H. Porter is a scholar working on Ecology, Ecological Modeling and Information Systems. According to data from OpenAlex, John H. Porter has authored 64 papers receiving a total of 6.4k indexed citations (citations by other indexed papers that have themselves been cited), including 32 papers in Ecology, 15 papers in Ecological Modeling and 14 papers in Information Systems. Recurrent topics in John H. Porter's work include Species Distribution and Climate Change (15 papers), Research Data Management Practices (14 papers) and Wildlife Ecology and Conservation (10 papers). John H. Porter is often cited by papers focused on Species Distribution and Climate Change (15 papers), Research Data Management Practices (14 papers) and Wildlife Ecology and Conservation (10 papers). John H. Porter collaborates with scholars based in United States, Taiwan and China. John H. Porter's co-authors include Frank Dentener, Anthony F. Michaels, Pamela Green, Elizabeth W. Boyer, Alan R. Townsend, Douglas G. Capone, Sybil P. Seitzinger, Elisabeth A. Holland, James N. Galloway and David M. Karl and has published in prestigious journals such as PLoS ONE, Trends in Ecology & Evolution and Ecology.

In The Last Decade

John H. Porter

62 papers receiving 6.0k citations

Hit Papers

Nitrogen Cycles: Past, Present, and Future 2004 2026 2011 2018 2004 2013 1000 2.0k 3.0k 4.0k

Peers — A (Enhanced Table)

Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late) cites · hero ref

Name h Career Trend Papers Cites
John H. Porter United States 24 2.4k 1.4k 1.4k 1.1k 933 64 6.4k
Wei Li China 40 2.2k 0.9× 516 0.4× 838 0.6× 1.2k 1.0× 865 0.9× 584 6.7k
Lucy J. Sheppard United Kingdom 40 2.3k 1.0× 1.7k 1.2× 1.2k 0.8× 1.7k 1.5× 2.5k 2.7× 161 6.6k
Martin J. Wassen Netherlands 45 3.5k 1.5× 1.0k 0.7× 797 0.6× 1.6k 1.4× 1.9k 2.0× 192 6.5k
Junsheng Li China 36 1.6k 0.7× 476 0.3× 718 0.5× 3.1k 2.7× 690 0.7× 304 7.4k
Kathleen C. Weathers United States 55 3.8k 1.6× 1.9k 1.3× 2.7k 2.0× 3.8k 3.4× 1.4k 1.4× 174 11.8k
Marijn van der Velde Italy 43 2.2k 0.9× 3.2k 2.3× 787 0.6× 3.1k 2.7× 2.3k 2.5× 124 9.9k
Thomas Scholten Germany 52 2.5k 1.0× 3.6k 2.6× 639 0.5× 2.0k 1.8× 1.1k 1.2× 244 9.6k
Sven Erik Jørgensen Denmark 56 3.0k 1.3× 361 0.3× 1.9k 1.4× 3.0k 2.7× 497 0.5× 260 10.4k
Jeffrey C. Nekola United States 31 2.7k 1.2× 204 0.1× 1.2k 0.9× 744 0.7× 523 0.6× 79 6.1k
Forrest M. Hoffman United States 47 2.1k 0.9× 880 0.6× 395 0.3× 5.1k 4.5× 670 0.7× 165 8.1k

Countries citing papers authored by John H. Porter

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of John H. Porter's research. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by John H. Porter with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites John H. Porter more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by John H. Porter

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by John H. Porter. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by John H. Porter. The network helps show where John H. Porter may publish in the future.

Co-authorship network of co-authors of John H. Porter

This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of John H. Porter. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of John H. Porter based on the total number of citations received by their joint publications. Widths of edges represent the number of papers authors have co-authored together. Node borders signify the number of papers an author published with John H. Porter. John H. Porter is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.

All Works

20 of 20 papers shown
1.
Dueser, Raymond D., John H. Porter, & Nancy D. Moncrief. (2025). The continuing search for a better mouse trap: Two tests of a practical, low-cost camera trap for detecting and observing small mammals. PLoS ONE. 20(1). e0309252–e0309252.
2.
Porter, John H., et al.. (2025). Using a units ontology to annotate pre-existing metadata. Scientific Data. 12(1). 304–304. 1 indexed citations
3.
Porter, John H. & Raymond D. Dueser. (2024). A Low‐Cost Small‐Mammal Camera Trap for Research and Education. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America. 105(3). 1 indexed citations
4.
Porter, John H., et al.. (2023). X-ray Inspection Model Validation with Physical Dosimetry. Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation. 42(3).
5.
Porter, John H., et al.. (2022). Methods for estimating X-ray machine output through measurement and simulation. Applied Radiation and Isotopes. 183. 110125–110125. 2 indexed citations
6.
Auld, Tony D., Andrew J. Denham, Mark G. Tozer, et al.. (2015). Saving arid and semi-arid southern Australia after over 150 years of exotic grazing pressure: Have we got the time and the will?. Australasian Plant Conservation journal of the Australian Network for Plant Conservation. 24(2). 3–5. 9 indexed citations
7.
Lin, Chau-Chin, Abd Rahman Kassim, Kristin Vanderbilt, et al.. (2011). An Ecoinformatics Application for Forest Dynamics Plot Data Management and Sharing. Táiwān línyè kēxué. 26(4). 357–369. 1 indexed citations
8.
Porter, John H., Paul C. Hanson, & Chau-Chin Lin. (2011). Staying afloat in the sensor data deluge. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 27(2). 121–129. 86 indexed citations
9.
Lin, Chau-Chin, et al.. (2008). Using Structured Metadata to Manage Forestry Research Information: A New Approach. 23(2). 133–143. 2 indexed citations
10.
Lin, Chau-Chin, et al.. (2008). Establishing an EML-based Data Management System for Automating Analysis of Field Sensor Data. 23(3). 279–285. 7 indexed citations
11.
Selavo, Leo, Adrienne Wood, Qing Cao, et al.. (2007). LUSTER. 103–116. 164 indexed citations
12.
Lin, Chau-Chin, et al.. (2006). A Metadata-based Framework for Multilingual Ecological Information Management. 21(3). 377–382. 7 indexed citations
13.
Erwin, R. Michael, et al.. (2004). Nest-site selection and hatching success of waterbirds in coastal Virginia: some results of habitat manipulation. Journal of Field Ornithology. 75(4). 317–329. 33 indexed citations
14.
Bachmann, Charles M., et al.. (2002). Automatic detection of an invasive plant species on a barrier island in the Virginia. 5. 2172–2174. 3 indexed citations
15.
Shao, Guofan, Donald R. Young, John H. Porter, & Bruce P. Hayden. (1998). An Integration of Remote Sensing and GIS to Examine the Responses of Shrub Thicket Distributions to Shoreline Changes on Virginia Barrier Islands. Journal of Coastal Research. 14(1). 299–307. 18 indexed citations
16.
Young, Donald R., Guofan Shao, & John H. Porter. (1995). Spatial and temporal growth dynamics of Barrier Island shrub thickets. American Journal of Botany. 82(5). 638–645. 55 indexed citations
17.
Porter, John H. & James Dooley. (1993). Animal Dispersal Patterns: A Reassessment of Simple Mathematical Models. Ecology. 74(8). 2436–2443. 61 indexed citations
18.
Porter, John H. & Raymond D. Dueser. (1990). Selecting a Body-Mass Criterion for Measuring Dispersal. Journal of Mammalogy. 71(3). 470–473. 1 indexed citations
19.
Porter, John H. & Raymond D. Dueser. (1989). A Comparison of Methods for Measuring Small-Mammal Dispersal by Use of a Monte-Carlo Simulation Model. Journal of Mammalogy. 70(4). 783–793. 4 indexed citations
20.
Forrester, Donald, et al.. (1982). Lungworms of feral swine in Florida. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 181(11). 1278–1280. 12 indexed citations

Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.

Explore authors with similar magnitude of impact

Rankless by CCL
2026